Nov. 13, Peterson Prelim:
Det. Philip Owen testified that when Laci Peterson's body washed ashore in April a few miles from the Berkeley Marina, it was clad in tan maternity pants. Her sister, Amy Rocha, testified earlier that Laci Peterson was wearing tan pants on Dec. 23, the last time anyone other than Scott Peterson reported seeing her alive.
Owen also said there was duct tape around her crotch.
We need the transcripts from Greta to determine a couple of things. One, to see exactly what Brocchini supposedly did wrong and two according to who?
If the defense claims that the transcript of the taped interview does not contain references to duct tape, I would refer them to the transcript of Kim McGregor's taped interview. In Brocchini's 6/28 testimony he cites numerous errors and ommissions in the transcript of that interview. The defense knows those transcripts are incomplete.
The taped interview itself may differ from the phone tip that was called in by the friend. Brocchini was referring to tips called in when he testified about the duct tape.
Greta is obviously connected to the defense in some way. To combat her proclamation the day before that "nobody knew about duct tape" and that the tipster may in fact have been telling the truth, the defense feeds her a line that has her backing up wildly to save face (nip tuck 2).
If Geragos wants to have any chance of bringing this up as a grounds for appeal, he must object on the record. I don't know if he did; Greta said he didn't.
If he does decide to try to derail the prosecution b/c of Brocchini's alleged "perjury", then he must move for a mistrial. BUT if he moves for a mistrial, he is in danger of GETTING a mistrial. (I mean, if you ask for something, you might get it, right? Even if there's only a small chance?)
Geragos has to think: Do I really want a mistrial at this point? That would mean Scott goes back to jail for maybe another year, we start all this over again, we haven't gained an acquittal, and we might not do as well next time as I think we are doing this time.
All in all, I don't see Geragos sincerely asking for a mistrial here. And if he doesn't ask for a mistrial to preserve the record now, then he can't bring this up on appeal, b/c the appeals court will say he WAIVED his problems with this issue by not asking for a mistrial.
Really, after first wondering, then listening to other posters, then thinking it over, I think this is all much ado about nothing!